[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I want to see just one reliable source demonstrating that homosexuality was denounced and reviled by larger Roman society. I’m not saying that it’s not so (really have no idea), but I have not seen anything of this nature.[/quote]
No time due to work - but start with Lex Scantinia.
Never said it did - thanks anyway.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Again, you can’t have it both ways. If homosexuality was considered a significant factor in the so-called decadence and ultimate demise of Greek civilization, then it must have been practiced to an extent commensurate with that impact.[/quote]
Not having it both ways - there is plenty of homosexual activity practiced in Texas, is that a good indicator that of cultural tolerance of homosexuality in Texas?
You aren’t making sense.
Not sure - it is Pookie, yourself, and Makavali (in the past) using it such a way.
[quote]One day you will grow up and learn that ad hominem attacks on a person’s motivations or character do not contribute to the validity of your claims.
[/quote]
It isn’t an ad hominem - more than any person in this forum, you are guilty of being selective with facts to suit your agenda. Not my problem to fix, but it certainly is a problem. Highlighting that flaw is not an ad hominem
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Here’s your problem, Chris:
When you want to argue that something ought to be done in a democracy, you need to use justifications that will be meaningful to all reasonable people. For example, you could argue, like some people on this thread, that homosexuality causes disease and depression, and so is a public health threat. That’s untrue, but at least if it were true it would matter to all of us – everybody wants to prevent public health threats.
But appeals to religious truth simply don’t matter to everyone. There are atheists. There are non-Christian religions. There are Christians who don’t interpret the Bible as you do. Even if you’re quite right that homosexuality is a sin in your faith, still for many people that fact is absolutely inconsequential. You’re making the kind of argument that cannot possibly convince anybody not already in your camp.
You have to go back farther into the argument, the argument itself strayed to how is homosexuality a sin. I am still observant to the opinion that homosexuality will break down the stability of the American family and one of the important pillars of America.[/quote]
Fair enough. I forgot that.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Not sure - it is Pookie, yourself, and Makavali (in the past) using it such a way.[/quote]
Because people (not you) have implied that the Judeo-Christian way of life has been around since the earth was formed 6000 years ago. They also imply that gays have ALWAYS been discriminated in a fashion like they are today, when that simply isn’t true.
It seems to me like most (not all) of the anti-gay sentiment comes from (man-made) religion, looking for a another rally point which will gather even more (blind) followers to part with a percentage of their cash or some bullshit along those lines.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mishima wrote:
Right now the celebration of the gay lifestyle is just a sign of decadence.
This needs to be addressed in a separate post.
What makes you think that gays are only interested in sex, while heteros are interested in sex, love, companionship, and emotional intimacy?
Do you not understand that sexual orientation ties into all of these areas, irrespective of sexual orientation?
My partner and I are in a long term, committed, loving relationship that encompasses the same physical/emotional dimensions that you will find in a heterosexual relationship.[/quote]
Let’s take it a step further back… who is praising or celebrating gays here?
I for one am mostly indifferent, I just despise discrimination based on something that can’t be changed (and doesn’t harm anyone).
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If you really want to visit someone, here is a trick, in the hospital if you say you’re their pastor, most of the time they will allow you through as long as there is not a police escort with them.[/quote]
I thought lying was a sin. And why should he even have to?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I want to see just one reliable source demonstrating that homosexuality was denounced and reviled by larger Roman society. I’m not saying that it’s not so (really have no idea), but I have not seen anything of this nature.
No time due to work - but start with Lex Scantinia.
Thunderbolt, please provide. Your saying it was the case does not make it true.
Never said it did - thanks anyway.[/quote]
I’m also too busy at work to look into it now. But thanks for providing the source. At least I have something to follow-up with now.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
forlife wrote:
Mishima wrote:
Right now the celebration of the gay lifestyle is just a sign of decadence.
This needs to be addressed in a separate post.
What makes you think that gays are only interested in sex, while heteros are interested in sex, love, companionship, and emotional intimacy?
Do you not understand that sexual orientation ties into all of these areas, irrespective of sexual orientation?
My partner and I are in a long term, committed, loving relationship that encompasses the same physical/emotional dimensions that you will find in a heterosexual relationship.
Let’s take it a step further back… who is praising or celebrating gays here?
I for one am mostly indifferent, I just despise discrimination based on something that can’t be changed (and doesn’t harm anyone).[/quote]
Personally I wouldn’t care if it could be changed. Even if gays really secretly loved women and were having sex to be “evil” it still wouldn’t bother me. It just has no effect on me, and it’s not an issue I really have to worry over.
[quote]forlife wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Quid is right. You’ve just betrayed yourself as what you are.
It’s not about religion – the same people who bash gays on here seem perfectly happy with straight promiscuity.
It’s not about science – nobody has cited any science.
It’s about power, and disgust, and hatred.
Forlife, you’re a good guy for taking all the abuse and responding sanely.
Thanks, the one thing I’ll say for Mick is that at least his hatred isn’t hidden behind cherry picked statistics and quotations from the bible. He is a blatant bigot, and makes no bones about it.[/quote]
In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a bigot.
And you then claim that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness? LOL!!!
[quote]Thors Spammer wrote:
I personally use science as my standpoint on homosexuality.
With that being said, let me make it clear that I find nothing WRONG with being homosexual.
My two beliefs:
#1) Homosexuality is the result of a psychological disorder, and arises from a multitude of psychological problems which could include the need for attention, the need to be different, etc…
#2) Homosexuality is a genetic disease, in which case you CAN be born a homosexual.
My reasoning is as follows. Homosexuality is not compatible with the reproductive model of humans. If predispositions for homosexuality were genetically ingrained, it would be pretty much wiped out of the human germ line, due to the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce with their preferred mate. Through evolution, the “homosexuality” gene would disappear, meaning people could not be born a homosexual. However, because DNA replication is not perfect, there would always be a chance that a genetic mutation could produce an offspring that was born with a “homosexuality” gene. That is really the only way you can be born something - you must have the genes that predetermine that. So when homosexuals say they were “born that way,” they are in effect saying they were born genetically different, which would only be possible if there was a genetic mutation to begin with, since evolution dictates that a homosexuality gene would never survive in a heterosexually reproducing species. Which makes me strongly believe that the majority of homosexuals are not truly homosexuals, in that they were not “born that way.” Instead, I believe that because of psychological differences, they become homosexuals - which means they can be reverted back to heterosexuals (GASP).
So, while I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, I do believe that it should not be considered a normal human characteristic…[/quote]
I’m catching up on this thread, but want to compliment this post. Now, who will be the first to call you a homophobe…?
[quote]Mishima wrote:
But- and again that soundx harsher than I mean it - there is no value for society for two gay men gettng married.[/quote]
Why do you keep saying this, without addressing the point that gay couples help provide loving homes for thousands of children? Do you not agree that this is of value to society?
Furthermore, marriage provides additional stability to society which would otherwise not exist. Gays aren’t going to stop being gay by disallowing them to marry. However, marriage incorporates legal benefits and responsibilities that benefit society by adding stability, reducing the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, etc.
Finally, since when is marriage conditional on being able or even being willing to have children? Straight couples marry all the time, who are either infertile, past their childbearing years, or have no desire to ever have children. Yet you still allow them to marry, as a sign of their love for one another.
[quote]Mishima wrote:
forlife@ I get your point. But don*t you think that nature had a plan that a man and an woman is needed to produce children? is any study smarter than all the evolution of mankind?[/quote]
Obviously homosexuality is part of nature’s “plan”, since it has existed for thousands of years and is observed among a large variety of animal species.
What else would cause homosexuality if it wasn’t “nature”? Do you think people just randomly choose to be attracted to someone of the same gender?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I believe the legislation should be a reflection of the people.[/quote]
I asked if you would still feel this way if some religion tried to legislate beliefs on you which hurt you in some way?
For example, what if muslims were the majority in the U.S., and they decided that only muslims should be allowed to marry, since Allah doesn’t recognize the validity of any other marriage? Would you like being denied the right to marry based on their religious belief?
So you think gays should be required to lie in order to visit their sick partner in the hospital? A coworker of mine was unable to visit his partner following a heart attack, until the father arrived to grant permission. He wasn’t considered “family”, despite being partnered for 25 years.
This is only one of literally 1,000+ federal rights/benefits associated with marriage that are currently denied to gay couples. Does that seem right to you?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I am still observant to the opinion that homosexuality will break down the stability of the American family and one of the important pillars of America.[/quote]
How does my being gay hurt your family in any way?
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
I think all gay people (except the hot lesbians) should be burnt at the stake and/or crucified.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t it make more sense to burn all the hetero males, so you have less competition for the women?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Not having it both ways - there is plenty of homosexual activity practiced in Texas, is that a good indicator that of cultural tolerance of homosexuality in Texas?[/quote]
The fact that homosexual activity was far more common in Greece than in Texas probably tells you something about the relative cultural acceptability.
I never said or implied this. My only point with discussing the incidence of homosexuality in other cultures has been to address Zeb’s argument that it is impossible for heterosexual men to have sex with other men.
I completely disagree with you, but even if you were right, the intelligent and constructive approach is to address the arguments themselves. My motivations, however you interpret them, are irrelevant to the validity of any points you are trying to make.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a bigot.
And you then claim that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness? LOL!!!
[/quote]
Anybody that advocates disparate treatment of gays is a bigot, irrespective of whether or not they agree with me.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Let’s take it a step further back… who is praising or celebrating gays here?
I for one am mostly indifferent, I just despise discrimination based on something that can’t be changed (and doesn’t harm anyone).[/quote]
That’s a good point. Since when does advocating against discrimination translate to “celebrating” every minority group?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a bigot.
And you then claim that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness? LOL!!!
Anybody that advocates disparate treatment of gays is a bigot, irrespective of whether or not they agree with me.[/quote]
And here I thought that disparate treatment of anyone was bigotry.
Now the big question: if we have to accept your point of view, why do you NOT have to accept our point of view?
You say you are fighting for equal rights. But most rights are a function of what society deems them to be. The inalienable ones are a given and gay ‘rights’ are not in the list. People in a republic make their views heard by voting. Populations have consistently voted against gay marriage, which is why corrupt judges have to sneak it through. Since gay rights are not inalienable, they are determined BY VOTING.
As of now, the majority of people refuse to grant you the right to marry. That will change as the meaning of the word is corrupted and degraded. Dissolving societies often are accepting of more and progressively worse perversions.
Soon, your ‘friend’ will leave you for a pony. The pony will get SS benefits and visitation rights, from Obama; like how Caligula made Incitatus a Senator. How sad.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And here I thought that disparate treatment of anyone was bigotry.[/quote]
Disparate treatment of criminals isn’t bigotry. Disparate treatment of people based on personal characteristics like race, age, gender, or sexual orientation is bigotry.
You are stating your opinion as fact. The Supreme Court disagrees with you, and has noted that sexual orientation is not a valid characteristic for denying people equal rights under the Constitution.
You do realize that as recently as this year, the legislature (not the courts) has passed laws allowing gays to marry, right? And public opinions favoring equal rights for gays have steadily increased over the past couple of decades. You see that as social decline, and I see it as social progress. Regardless, it is happening and you can’t stop it.
Tell that to my friends Ian and Ambrose, who have been together for over 50 years.